How Do You Prove the Order of ab is mn in an Abelian Group When gcd(m, n) = 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jupiter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements Group
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

In an abelian group G, if an element a has order m and an element b has order n with gcd(m, n) = 1, then the order of the product ab is mn. The proof involves showing that (ab)^(mn) = e and that mn is the smallest integer for which this holds. By assuming a smaller integer k, it can be demonstrated that k must be a common multiple of both m and n, leading to the conclusion that mn is indeed the smallest such integer.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of abelian groups and their properties
  • Knowledge of group order and the concept of gcd (greatest common divisor)
  • Familiarity with the division algorithm in number theory
  • Experience with proofs involving modular arithmetic
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of abelian groups in depth
  • Learn about the relationship between group orders and least common multiples (LCM)
  • Explore proofs involving the division algorithm and modular arithmetic
  • Investigate examples of group theory problems involving gcd and order
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for mathematicians, particularly those studying abstract algebra, group theory, and anyone interested in the properties of abelian groups and their elements.

Jupiter
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
If G is an abelian group, a in G has order m, b in G has order n, and gcd(m,n)=1, show that ab has order mn.

I am able to show that (ab)^(mn)=e actually occurs. I am having great difficulty however showing that mn is the smallest such integer. I tried to assume that there were a smaller integer, but I could not derive any contradiction. I tried to use the fact that gcd(m,n)=1 as best I could, but I can't make it work for me.

Anyone have any ideas on where to go with this proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
first of all, suspect that you have a minor detail of treating the cases when at least one of a and b equals e, having order 1.

i tried this for a while and didn't make heads or tails of it.

then i did the always helpful example. i supposed m=o(a)=4 and n=o(b)=15. note that gcd(4,15)=1.

suppose o(ab)=k<mn=60.

then (ab)^k=e.

as an example, i supposed k=59.

note that a^59=a^3 because o(a)=4 and 59 = 3 mod 4.

also note that b^59=b^14 because o(b)=15 and 59 = 14 mod 15.

by assuming k=59, ie o(ab)=59, (ab)^59=e.

e=(ab)^59=a^59 b^59 (as G is abelian)
=a^3 b^14.

now "multiply" both sides by ab (using abelian again) to get this:
ab=a^4 b^15=e. hence o(ab)=1<k=59 but k was supposed to be the smallest "power" for which (ab)^k=e

now the harder part is proving that it is true in general. one thing i didn't seem to explicitly make use of is the relative primality of o(a) and o(b)...
 
Here's a hint:

gcd(m, n) = 1 if and only if lcm(m, n) = mn.
 
Hurkyl, your hint would be very useful if I could somehow show that the order of ab must be a common multiple of m and n.

... which I cannot do. I suppose that ab has order k, and then I try to show n|k and m|k. I then suppose that I do not have n|k and m|k. I apply the division algorithm and get a^r1b^r2=e. And this does me no good unless I can show ri=0.

Please Hurkyl a further hint.
 
Blarg, I always forget that step when I try to remember the proof to this problem!


The trick is, IIRC, that a^p b^q = e implies b^{qm} = e, and do something from there.
 
Hurkyl, your genuis quite disgusts me. In any event, I was able to complete the proof. Thanks so much for your help! You weren't by any chance born knowing this, were you?
In case you're interested, you have to instead compute (ab)^q=e^q. Once you get b^(qm)=e, you use the fact that b has order n and that n,m are relatively prime to show n|q. Similarly, you can show m|q. And so q is a common multiple of m,n, and so mn|q.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
887
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
640
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K